Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
B.Sankar & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
The District Collector, krishnagiri district, Krishnagiri & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.Nos.24999 & 25000 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.29038 & 29039 of 2018
Decided On : 11-12-2018
Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 67 - Telegraph Act, 1885 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Challenging national level project relief sought for in the present Writ Petition - Against the order of rejection - Learned counsel appearing on behalf of writ petitioners articulated facts by narrating that writ petitioners are agriculturists and cultivating their lands in their locality - In respect of petitioner is owner of agricultural lands in District and in respect of petitioner is owner of agricultural lands in Village District, wherein second respondent is implementing transmission project by making arrangements to erect Power Transmission Routes from Originally towers were planned to erect High Tension Tower along with adjacent dry lands – Held, In respect of the order impugned passed by District Collector this Court is of opinion that District Collector had given an opportunity to the writ petitioners to submit their objections. However, as discussed in the earlier paragraphs, District Collector is not an authority to modify Route or to change place - Collector is empowered to remove obstructions if any caused for purpose of implementation of Scheme of erecting transmission towers – Thus Authority of Collector in this regard is restricted and shall be exercised only with reference to the provisions of the Electricity Act,2003 and Indian Telegraph Act – Thus Collector has proceeded in accordance with provisions of above Acts – Though Collector has provided an opportunity same has not been fully utilized by writ petitioners by providing their statements – Contrarily petitioners appeared and refused to record their statement - This being conduct of writ petitioners this Court is unable to accept contention that prior permission was needed from writ petitioners and opportunity also had not been given to writ petitioners to put forth their grievances - When opportunity was provided in accordance with provisions and when powers of Collector under Acts are certainly limited Collector cannot change the Scheme or modify route already approved by appropriate Government - Only course left open for writ petitioners is to claim damages or just compensation manner by approaching the concerned District Judge by filing appropriate petitions under provisions of Act - This being scope of litigation before this Court writ petitioners have not established any acceptable grounds for purpose of considering relief as sought for in the present Writ Petitions - Petitions are closed
ORDER :
COMMON PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order dated: 27.08.2018 in Na.Ka.No.13150/2018/R2 of the 1st Respondent and quash the same, and consequently directing the 1st Respondent to consider the Petitioner’s Objections after furnishing the Petitioner with the Approval Memo, Route Approval, Check Survey, Angle Deviation, GPS Co-Ordinates, Distances between the Towers, No. of Towers, Nature of Towers, Approved plan & Route of the Project, Approval Survey, Prior Approval for the Project by the Central Government, Paper Publication, Gazette Notification, Project Report, Project Approval Copy, Approved Route, Route Map, Angle Deviation, Check Survey List, Re-Check Survey List, Guidelines for safety Measures, Documents relating to Crop Compensations & Compensation for diminution of Land Value with respect to the Implementation of the Pugalur to Raigarh 800 KVA Power Transmission Project in the Lands of the Petitioner and also giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity within a time frame fixed by this Court.
The writ petitions have been filed against the order of rejection passed by the District Collector, Krishnagiri District, in respect of the grievances of the writ petitioners challenging the national level project approved and being implemented by the second respondent/Power Grid Corporation of India.
2. The further relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioners’ objections after furnishing the petitioner with the prior approval of the Project by the Central Government, Route Map of the Project, Government Approval, Route Approval, Angle Deviation, GPS Co-Ordinates, Distances between the Towers, No. of Towers, Nature of Towers, Approval Survey, Paper Publication, Gazette Notification, Project Report, Social Impact Assessment/Report, Guidelines for Safety Measures, Documents relating to Crop Compensations & Compensation for diminution of Land Value with respect to the Implementation of the Pugalur to Raigarh 800 KV Power Transmission Project in the lands of the petitioners and also giving the petitioners reasonable opportunity within a time frame fixed by this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners articulated the facts by narrating that the writ petitioners are the agriculturists and cultivating their lands in their locality. In respect of W.P.No.24999/2018, the petitioner is the owner of the agricultural lands in the Damotharalli Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District and in respect of W.P.No.25000 of 2018, the petitioner is the owner of the agricultural lands in the Chinna Koothampatti Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District, wherein the second respondent is implementing the transmission project by making arrangements to erect 800 KV Power Transmission Routes from Pugalur to Raigarh. Originally the towers were planned to erect the High Tension Tower along with the adjacent dry lands. However, the route was suddenly changed without any intimation or survey and the second respondent arbitrarily and purposefully changed the alignment route of the Tower lines in order to safeguard the lands of politically sound and influential persons in that locality. It is contented that in order to safeguard the property of few individuals, the original route had been deviated and, therefore, the writ petitioners are constrained to move the present Writ Petitions.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners emphasized that the right of the petitioners over their property is taken away without following the due process of law. The property right conferred on the writ petitioners is taken away by these authorities, namely, the Power Grid Corporation of India, without even providing an opportunity and furnishing the particulars sought for by the writ petitioners through their r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
